About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
president, and george w. bush was a guy who thought deeply about imuation reform, poverty and trying to craft a middle class agenda for the gop. george w. bush is a figure that many republicans have been running away from. so tell me, do you think republicans were too quick to abandon george w. bush? >> i'm sorry, what? i was tweeting. i'm sorry. [laughter] um, well, yes and no. i think, obviously, politically republicans distanced themselves from george w. bush because it was politic thing to do. numbers don't lie. he became very unpopular. parties tend not to embrace figures and politicians who become unpopular. my view is that a lot of the distress over bush's domestic agenda from which republicans fled beginning really in 2005 had, it was a, it was an ancillary result of the failure to secure victory in iraq early and to have a favorable reckoning -- >> so iraq sank what might have been a successful domestic policy agenda? >> right. well, what i mean is that i think the entire country stopped listening to president bush on what would be efficacious for the country when it lost fa
they have been there already. it's called george w. bush america. it has two unfunded wars, depression and ongoing effort to divide americans over wage issues. it leads to secure a presidential win in 2016 by changing the rules of the electoral college. now under the old rules the candidate who wins the popular votes gets all of the state's electoral votes. which is how president obama beat mitt romney handily 332- 332-206. but under the new rules presidential candidates would split the electoral college votes based on which congressional districts they won with two additional electoral votes going to the winner of the popular vote. so if those rules had been in effect last year, president obama would have lost to governor romney 262-273. nice thinking. right now those rules are in effect in two states maine and nebraska. but g.o.p. legislation in michigan pennsylvania and virginia are also considering making the change. the g.o.p. also isn't backing down on its effort to restrict access to the ballot box by potential democratic voters wherever it can. so the democratic legislators in
presence put together by jim baker and george h. w. bush and the success in the engagement of it. but subsequent to that, we have seen a completely different scene. that is what i would describe as three alarmers and two alarmers. we about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world within all of a sudden you have people who don't have the -- a lot of people in congress who don't have the previous reference have basically come to the conclusion that the world has changed and we can't afford nor do we have the public support for global open gaugement. -- engagement. when you talk to people back home and you say why do we give so much foreign aid? it is literally like saying, you know, you need to diet and lose a lot of weight and you get a haircut and solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid and presence now is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant compared to it. but yet the will to support that going forward and even step out and say well we ought to be more engaged here or do more here or these are the functions that are working. it's
, republicans have not had a majority of votes. even though george w. bush served two terms, he did not get a majority in 2000 and barely got one in 2004? >> i'm not one to minimize the danger and challenge of the republican party. losing 25 senate seats this year -- president obama only got 51% of the vote. the economy is looking great. a lot of democratic incumbents looked people ribble. the senate cannot be gerrymandered. it looked like a clean a snapshot of the country. for republicans to win 8 waterboarded -- while democrats one -- republicans will 8 and democrats won 25, that is dangerous. we need to figure out what went wrong in 2012. i'm not for endless naval gazing. there are plenty of fights to be had. where can we cooperate with president obama? in some ways, you lose an election, and you think about it for a few months. and you get back right on the horse and try to start writing again and figure out what we believe and and what fights we want to have and what policies we want to -- want to propose. host: politico wrote about you -- what have you been doing? guest: it is interes
that's one of the key things that this party has to do. you do it quickly. george w. bush always did it when he was president. somebody comes out and says something stupid like the congressman from georgia, paul brown, a couple days ago said barack obama, he didn't follow the u.s. constitution. he followed the soviet constitution. it doesn't cost republican leaders anything to speak out and say, that is a stupid and offensive remark. it offends swing voters. let's talk about issues that are going to balance the budget, save medicare and get americans back to work. we've got to speak out against the stupidities. bobby says we've got to stop being the stupid party, and you start by disciplining your most stupid members. >> joe, that's right. bobby jindal said last night that the party needs to stop insulting the intelligence of the american people. joe, he's going to use his platform as chairman of the republican governors association, also as one of the most obvious of the 2016 candidates to make these points. he said government needs to be much smaller. he said that we need about hal
another recent president, george w. bush, for the most polarizing presidents the way they put it of all time. chris wallace joins me now, the anchor of "fox news sunday." good morning, chris. >> food morning, martha. martha: what is the meaning of that number do you think? >> well it shows there is not a lot of common ground for the president. this was his polling number last year for the campaign year. i don't think given his inaugural address which pushed a very assertive liberal agenda that it will be much different this year, perhaps even the next four years. there is not a lot of common ground with this president. either you like him or really don't like him. he is perceived as a liberal, and somebody who will push a liberal agenda. martha: yeah. i have the same thought in terms of bringing things together. we did hear a lot about hope and change. when president obama then senator, ran against george bush he talked so much about the divisiveness in washington and how things were going to change. you wonder, sort of, how dispointing that is for him, on a personal level. and we'll no
not had a majority of votes. even though george w. bush served two terms, he did not get a majority in 2000 and barely got one in 2004? guest: i'm not one to minimize the danger and challenge of the republican party. losing 25 senate seats this year president obama only got 51% of the vote. the economy is looking great. .- was not great a lot of democratic incumbents looked people ribble. the senate cannot be gerrymandered. it looked like a clean a snapshot of the country. for republicans to win 8 while democrats one -- republicans will 8 and democrats won 25, that is dangerous. we need to figure out what went wrong in 2012. i'm not for endless naval gazing. there are plenty of fights to be had. where can we cooperate with president obama? in some ways, you lose an election, and you think about it for a few months. and you get back right on the horse and try to start writing again and figure out what we believe and and what fights we want to have and what policies we want to -- want to propose. host: politico wrote about you what have you been doing? guest: it is interesting to lear
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)